We offer a model of romantic love as a means to the end of feeling significant and worthy. According to this model, the partner’s perceived merits and their appreciation of the actor combine with the actor’s magnitude of significance quest to determine the likelihood of the actor falling in love with the partner. Our model affords a broad account of diverse love phenomena and the derivation of specific hypotheses supported by prior and new data and offers novel avenues for further research on classic issues in romantic love. The discussion considers our model’s unique implications and its relation to other theories of love.

Kruglanski et al.’s significance-based model overlooks fundamental biopsychological mechanisms driving romantic love. The Tie-Up Theory reveals how women’s subconscious biological compatibility assessments through physical, chemical, and behavioral signals operate independently of conscious significance calculations. Their gender-neutral framework ignores how men’s receptive emotional orientation differs from women’s active emotional competence. By reducing love to significance enhancement, the model cannot explain irrational attractions, persistent relationships despite low “merit,” or gendered dissolution patterns determined by reward cycle breakdowns.

We elaborate on importance of expressing appreciation in the formation of maintenance of romantic love. Reciprocal expression of appreciation may be a vital mediator of assortative mating, particularly insofar as human sexual mating forges lasting cooperative bonds essential for co-parenting.

Kruglanski et al.’s love formula – partner merit, appreciation, and the quest for meaning – offers a novel perspective but overlooks key evolutionary insights. It oversimplifies mating preferences, neglects contextual flexibility, and downplays reproductive signals crucial to partner selection. While innovative, the model fails to account for the complexity of human romantic behavior shaped by ecological, social, and developmental factors.

Are there measurable predictors for falling in love? Kruglanski et al. provide three. Their novel model includes a drive to feel socially significant: the Quest for Significance. This adds an important dimension to basic survival drives that others have proposed for the experience of love. It also adds to the tools available to those seeking intimacy and slow love.

We agree that people seek social significance and that falling in love can be a means to attaining significance. However, we suggest there are differences between people in how they construe and seek significance and how they fall in love.

Kruglanski et al.’s love model rightly highlights motivation and meaning as core to love, aligning with current research. However, this commentary expands the view, emphasizing love’s biological basis in brain systems and evolving different types of motivation. Love fulfills both individual and species-level needs, promoting health, connection, and generativity. True love transcends ego, growing into unconditional, spiritually rich connectedness over time.

We concur with the authors’ hypothesis that romantic love serves the quest for significance. However, we propose that (a) this quest also involves an intersubjective process of meaning co-construction within the couple and (b) love should be conceptualized as a dynamic process through which partners mutually shape and transform each other’s sense of significance over time.

The idea that romantic relationships are rooted in satisfying the need for significance reflects a broader principle: people are drawn to those who support their goals. This desire for goal support extends beyond the quest for significance, shaping friendships, family bonds, and even parental love, which many consider the greatest love of all.

This commentary responds to Kruglanski et al.’s paper, which theorizes that love is one means that can result in significance. The commentary’s first focus is whether love is well conceptualized as an instrumental activity (a means-end relation) and concludes that a constitutive-ends conceptualization is necessary (love helps to constitute significance). Secondly, the evidence base for their hypotheses appears thin.

Because not all romantic relationships are loving and not all romantic love happens within a romantic relationship, it would be good to specify whether Kruglanski’s model applies to falling in love, initiating a romantic relationship, or both. In addition, the model seems less applicable to one-sided love phenomena such as unreciprocated love, love at first sight, and parasocial love.

Does romantic love always depend on trade-offs between significance quests, partner appreciation, and partner merit? The compensatory logic of the love formula may better apply to romantic relationship initiation than maintenance. Personal quests for significance are more tied to the success/failure of established than new relationships. This makes it harder to keep partner appreciation and merit mentally separate, limiting compensation.

Kruglanski et al. frame romantic love as a quest for significance. This commentary expands their model by integrating an evolutionary perspective, linking significance to mating and reproductive success. It highlights how additional psychological needs – such as emotional security, arousal, and sexual satisfaction – also shape romantic love. By situating these needs within evolved functions, the commentary clarifies how significance interacts with other motivational systems in the emergence and dynamics of romantic love.

We critically evaluate the robustness of the “quest for significance” as a foundational driver of love. Drawing on attachment and belongingness theories, we argue that love stems from fundamental evolutionary needs for human connection. Furthermore, we propose that there should be a distinction on how the model is applied to explain love across different types and stages of relationships.

I offer a commentary on the “love as quest” model presented by Kruglanski and colleagues, highlighting its novel additions to our understanding of love, its potential and limitations as an empirically testable theory, and its clinical value.

Love emerges through interpersonal exchanges that evolve over time. A comprehensive account of love should reflect this dynamic nature and encompass its temporal and interpersonal aspects. As such, we propose integrating these dynamics into the target article’s framework to better align with relationship science and more accurately capture how romantic relationships develop, persist, and change across time and interaction.

The tri-factorial model of love attempts to explain the motivational underpinnings of romantic love. Given how the components are defined, the model has limited falsifiability and generalizability. We argue that a broader variety of interpersonal phenomena can be better explained with a framework that considers others’ instrumentality to various goals that dynamically shift in importance.

Kruglanski et al.’s “love as a quest” model casts romantic love as a path to personal significance. We argue this framing misrepresents love’s core nature, overlooking relational, emotional, and cultural dimensions. Love is not merely a reflection of individual validation but is dynamic and co-constructed. We advocate for a more relationally grounded and culturally inclusive framework on love.

We extend Kruglanski et al.’s model by embedding it within a Goal-Directed Predictive Processing framework. This perspective conceptualizes romantic love as arising from self-referential inferences tied to personal goals and reveals that love may include merit, appreciation, and significance, but is not defined or limited by them. It also explains love experiences that exceed the scope of the authors’ model.

The model by Kruglanski et al. accounts for a phenomenon that is idiosyncratic and unique to societies high in relational mobility. As such, partner’s merit and appreciation, and actor’s significance quest are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for romantic love in other societies. To illustrate this, we present the construal of relationships in Chinese society as a case study.